If a man requests, but woman won't have abortion, should he be freed of obligation?

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
To recycle another analogy, if you hit my car and damage the fender, you’re only obligated to get me a new fender. If I’d rather have a $1000 solid-gold Fenderator 5000 instead of the boring old $50 Toyota model, I have to pay the difference out of my own pocket.

And I’m sure the court will adjust the child support payments to accomodate your budget. Your analogy has nothing to do with choosing birth over abortion, it’s really more about the level of support a kid should get. Usually the income of the father (or lack thereof) is taken into a account when setting support payments. No one is expecting for the bio dad to pay out the nose to support a kid, if he is working at Pizza Hut. (And I know this is a topic for another thread. One of my friends is battling a psycho ex wife who is trying to bleed him dry with child support payments. I know the system can be flawed.)

And if she were so unwilling, she never would have spread 'em. Are you arguing against paternal opt-out or abortion?

I am only saying that once the seed has been planted, certain choices must be made. A woman has a different set of choices than a man does, because her biology is different than his. If she does not want to deal with these choices and inconveniences, then by all means, she’d better not spread 'em.

So there goes that argument, huh?

Are you that naive? Pregnancy has risks, but it does have health benefits. My sister had some sort of “difficulty” with her womb (I cannot remember the actual condition offhand) and the doctor told her that her imminent pregnancy solved the problem. It is known that having a child before a certain age can reduce the risk of certain cancers. Since it is a woman’s body that gets pregnant, she is entitled to choose what is best for her, her body, and her health. Even if it means that a child results.

She doesn’t have to get an abortion. She can raise the kid herself.

She can raise the kid herself, and the “sperm donor” can help support the kid financially.

She has to choose not to interrupt it. Inaction is just as much a free choice as action.

So is sex. Sex is an act of procreation, and has been since Adam and Eve.

And it only takes one to turn that “new life” into a baby–you know, the thing that actually needs support. A zygote doesn’t need immunizations or new clothes.

In 9 months it will. And it never will be anything if a man didn’t ejaculate into her.

And if she doesn’t want a new life to begin, all she has to do is not let him ejaculate into her, right?

Of course. And if she doesn’t want to change diapers and never get any sleep and do all the things moms do she won’t have the baby. But if she gets pregnant (because he ejactulates into her) and allows nature to take its course (has a baby) then the child still is entitled to support from both parents. She’s not off the hook for support. But he’s not off the hook either, because he ejactulated into her.

It seems to me you’re starting with the assumption that her sacred and precious body is far more important than his sacred and precious wallet.

Her body and health are more important than (as minty so aptly puts it) “your scheme to avoid inconvenience”.

[yosemite]

Oh, I wanted to address catsix’s question: The reason they have “safe harbor” policies is that they don’t want young moms leaving the kids in dumpsters to die. Too often, tragically, young teen moms (sometimes who have kept their pregnancy a secret) “hide” their kids in trashcans, hoping to never be found out. I am sure that if a young teen dad left a newborn to a hospital that he would not be prosecuted. Or at least shouldn’t be. I don’t think the gender of the parent is relevant (or shouldn’t be).

This policy seems mainly to be a drastic last-ditch effort to help prevent infant death at the hands of hysterical young parents who are not playing with a full deck.

[robertliguori]

This policy seems mainly to be a drastic last-ditch effort to help prevent infant death at the hands of hysterical young parents who are not playing with a full deck.

And one of its (I would say the) primary effect is to demonstrate that a woman has no inherent obligation to raise her child. I reiterate: why should men therefore have that obligation?

[pervert]

Pregnancy has risks, but it does have health benefits. My sister had some sort of “difficulty” with her womb (I cannot remember the actual condition offhand) and the doctor told her that her imminent pregnancy solved the problem. It is known that having a child before a certain age can reduce the risk of certain cancers. Since it is a woman’s body that gets pregnant, she is entitled to choose what is best for her, her body, and her health. Even if it means that a child results.

I assume we are still talking about choices AFTER conception. I don’t think you menat to imply that the woman has a right to become inseminated. I hope you are not trying to say that - if a woman claims to be on the pill but is really not - that is OK?

[pervert]

The purpose of the “safe harbor” laws is to provide a survivable choice for babies which would otherwise end up in garbage cans. Unless some proponent of these laws wants to correct me, I don’t think any state which has such laws removed thier child abandonment laws. That is, no community believes that abandoning a baby is preferable to loving parents raising it. The reality, however, is that the infant cannot defend itself. So it is next to impossible to catch abandoners before the baby dies. These laws were meant to express a prefference for life over death, not abandonment over responsibility.

Of course it is not necessary to repeat your oft sited “legality does not make morality” argument.

Certainly the moralization of abandonment is not the “primary” effect of these laws.

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by catsix *
**What about states with ‘safe harbor’ laws?

If someone has an obligation to a child once it’s born, why can a mother walk up to a hospital and hand over the kid, no questions asked, and never pay a dime in support ever for the kid she just gave to someone else to raise?

If women can do that at a hospital, why can’t a man just wash his hands of the whole thing? **

The same can be said for adoption and sperm donors.

This blows a big whole in the “IFTC” (It’s for the child) argument. It also points out that basically the father pays support to the mother, not the child. And, the mother isn’t held to the same standard.

[Debaser]

you with the face, I’m sorry but that cigarrette/gasoline baby analogy is just awful.

My original interpretation still stands that the “fire” in the analogy would take 9 months to happend and could be easily prevented by the mother, but not by the father.

[pervert]

There are two situations, and two choices. First there is a choice, made by both the man and the woman, to have sex. This leads to a situation where the woman is pregnant. Then there’s another choice, made only by the woman, to carry the child to term. This leads to another situation where there’s a child that needs food, clothes, toys, and whatnot.

The only situation the man is responsible for is the pregnancy. Since he has no control over what happens after that, he simply cannot be responsible for the later situation.

If you try to hold him responsible for setting things into motion, for causing the situation that led to the woman’s choice, then you also have to hold the man’s parents responsible for causing the situation that led to his choice to have sex, as well as everyone else who had a hand in all the events leading up to it. His parents are as responsible for his choice to have sex as he is responsible for the woman’s choice to give birth.

Mr2001, your argument only holds up if the choice is between all responsibility and no responsibility. Once you realize that a person can be responsible to varying degrees for a result your argument disappears.

Because in fact the parents and grandparents are responsible for the child in question. Only to a greatly reduced degree than the man or the woman. Consider the situation where the mother is 12. Her parents will take on a much greater burden than if she is 22.

The point of this whole thing is that the mother power over the child does not negate the fathers responsibilities. I would agree that it changes them. I might even agree that it reduces them somewhat. But it most certainly does not erase them.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
**The same can be said for adoption and sperm donors.

This blows a big whole in the “IFTC” (It’s for the child) argument. It also points out that basically the father pays support to the mother, not the child. And, the mother isn’t held to the same standard. **

I can agree with you that the current mechanisms of child support are not equitable. It is often the case that child support goes to the mother first and her responsibility toward the child can be over looked. She certainly shouldn’t be held to an identical standard (biological differences necessitate different responsibilities) but the standards should be fair. (Before we get off the track, I’m not claiming that all child support cases are decided in favor of the mother. Mistakes are made to her disadvantage just as often. I’m just saying that it is a very difficult subject and probably cause for a different thread.)

Meanwhile, however, the IFTC argument is not reduced by the existence of safe harbor laws. If anything it is strengthened. These laws exist to provide a “safe harbor” for abandoned infants, not for the abandoning parents. The parents are let off the hook for the simple reason that the child can not be safeguarded any other way. If there was a way to catch mothers (or father for that matter) who are willing to abandon their children in garbage cans before the child can die we would legalize those instead of the “safe harbor”.

[you_with_the_face]

Mr2001

Indeed. It means they want to be a solo parent more than they want to go under the knife or vacuum.

Let’s leave “want” out of it. Basically, she’s left with selecting the lesser of two evils. If you give a man the option of shooting himself in the head with a pistol or jumping off the ledge of a highrise apartment, and he opts to go by shooting, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he “wanted” to shoot himself more than he wanted to jump.

Then it must be irrelevant, because in real life there are two people making choices and potentially taking actions. You can’t ignore the fact that only the mother decides if the pregnancy will lead to a child.

It takes two to get pregnant, yes. But each party assumes an individual risk of becoming a parent whenever they let loose their gametes. Forget about the other partner, because what they say is subject to lies and errors, and the same amount of risks exists regardless of what the other partner says.

If you jump out of an airplane with no chute on because the pilot said he’d swoop down and pick you up before impact, the only person that is going to pay the price for that lack of common sense is you.

If you have sex with a woman without making absolutely sure that your sperm stays away from fertile ground, it doesn’t matter what she said she’d do. You’re the only person that is going to pay the price for your lack of contraception.

If I spill gasoline all the place and then say it it is not there, you still assume a risk of causing a fire by tossing your cigarette down.

If I’ve spilled gasoline and wasn’t aware of it, and told you that there was no gasoline on the floor, you’re still partially responsible for the fire that was started by the cigarette.

These are the fundamentals of being accountable.

Perhaps if this person is incapable of rescuing me without putting herself in peril, but if she’s just standing idly by while I plummet to my doom, I call that negligence.

Exactamondo. For a woman to have an abortion for your sake is putting her own self in peril’s way. Abortion is not a matter that entails only financial costs; intangibles are also involved. Health is involved. If you jump out of a plane with no parachute and the only person who can save you is a woman who would be jeopardizing her own life to do so, then she is not being negligent by not helping you. Sure, she could save you. But not without a significant cost. And that doesn’t necessarily mean that she wants you to die anymore than you do want to die. Her choice to help you or not, does not change the fact that you were responsible for jumping out of the plane in the first place.

She shouldn’t be held accountable for your death, just because she could have saved you but didn’t. You are still to blame for your own death.

[you_with_the_face]

My original interpretation still stands that the “fire” in the analogy would take 9 months to happend and could be easily prevented by the mother, but not by the father.

We’re going around and around in circles here, and no one is listening. I could easily say that the man could have easily prevented pregnancy by wearing a condom, but then where would that get us? No where.

The reason why the “burnt down house” represents pregnancy and not the “burning down house” is because both me and you are capable of putting out a burning down house. Pregnancy, however, is only capable of being “put out” by the woman. The story is not intended to perfectly mirror the state of being pregnant (very few things can); it is to show that responsibilities do not change just because another person has options that another person does not have.

[pervert]

OK, I know I’m going to get blasted for this, but let me try one more analogy.

Let’s say that a man and a woman start a business. At first its just some sort of product or service that they are competent at. In fact they have to do it entirely at the woman’s house with equipment she owned before they started. The man, however does participate even if it is just with labor;) .

As the business grows they begin to aquire assets in common (around 3-6 months). They begin to establish regular clients. And eventually (after 9 months) they get some investors with an IPO.

Now at this point we have more than just the 2 principles involved. The business becomes incorporated and thus is legally recognized as an independant entity. And the interests of 3rd parties become significant.

If the man wanted to walk away from the business at this point he would certainly retain any stock. And he would retain the rights to any intellectual property created during the early period.

I realize that this analogy does not hold up from all angles. If it did it would not be analogous it would be identical. But I think it changes the focus from some sort of harm being perpetrated on the woman to something they create in common. If I may clarify then, I think the business represents the child. The IPO being its birth. The earlier period representing the pregnancy. The idea being that the woman has total rights to the property she brought to the business during its earliest stages. In this case, the stock or rights to intellectual property represent the rights and responsibilities of the parents.

OK, feel free to laugh.

[In_Conceivable]

*Originally posted by robertliguori *
**When I do it first, yes. And in an arbitrated fashion. If, I sell you a product which I claim performs X but in fact performs Y, then explodes, I have entered into a contract under false premises with you, and have no right to your money. Therefore, I have “stolen” your money. **

So they why do courts allow law suit payments of higher the the amount lost by the injured party? Surely that is “stealing” then.

The fact is you gave yours sperm to a women. She didn’t steal it. The sperm combined with an egg and grew and grew until there was a baby. You helped create the baby, you help pay for it…

[In_Conceivable]

And, robert, when you answer the above please don’t start with how a women could choose to have an abortion. Because, you have said on page six that you don’t think that women should have to pay for their children either.

**

My wallet is large and thick, thank you very much. And I don’t think that women should be expected to take care of the kids they produce if they do not choose to.**

[robertliguori]

So they why do courts allow law suit payments of higher the the amount lost by the injured party? Surely that is “stealing” then.

That is a) arbitrated redress of breach of contract, and b) not even tangential to this thread.

The sperm combined with an egg and grew and grew until there was a baby.

And that was your fault, and there was nothing I could do to change that.

You helped create the baby, you help pay for it…

I helped create the pregnancy. It was your choice to go from pregnancy -> baby. Therefore, the consequences are also yours by default.

[robertliguori]

The fact is you gave yours sperm to a women. She didn’t steal it. The sperm combined with an egg and grew and grew until there was a baby. You helped create the baby, you help pay for it…

And, robert, when you answer the above please don’t start with how a women could choose to have an abortion. Because, you have said on page six that you don’t think that women should have to pay for their children either.

Or how about whoever wants to be the child’s parent pays for it?
Re: baby vs. pregnancy, control over one vs. the other, rights = responsibiliteis, blah blah blah.

Can we just agree to disagree on this one? We’ve both reached the point of saying the same thing more than twice, and I think we are both famaliar with each others’ arguments at this point.

[DrLizardo]

Pervert:

I think the analogy is great. At any time you mention, the man could, by completing giving up his interest in the business, be freed of future liability.

[DrLizardo]

Pervert:

I think the analogy is great. At any time you mention, the man could, by completely giving up his interest in the business, be freed of future liability.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
Your analogy has nothing to do with choosing birth over abortion, it’s really more about the level of support a kid should get.

In fact, it is about choosing birth vs. abortion; sorry you missed that part. If I damage your car (get you pregnant), I’m responsible for getting your car back to the state it was in (no longer pregnant). If you would prefer the solid gold fender (child that needs decades of financial support), you can pay for the difference yourself.

Her body and health are more important than (as minty so aptly puts it) “your scheme to avoid inconvenience”.

I find it telling that you reduce a man’s life to mere “convenience”.

Money isn’t just a number on an ATM screen, it represents an investment of time… there are only so many hours in a day, and so many days in a lifetime. Obligating a man to provide financial support for two decades is almost literally stealing a large chunk of his life.

*Originally posted by you with the face *
If you give a man the option of shooting himself in the head with a pistol or jumping off the ledge of a highrise apartment, and he opts to go by shooting, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he “wanted” to shoot himself more than he wanted to jump.

The only way it doesn’t follow is if he picked shooting at random. In any situation where there are several options, and you choose one option because it’s preferable for some reason, it’s fair to say you “want” that option more than the others, is it not? Whether you’d prefer a different option that’s unavailable to you is irrelevant.

If you jump out of an airplane with no chute on because the pilot said he’d swoop down and pick you up before impact, the only person that is going to pay the price for that lack of common sense is you.

I imagine my estate would be able to sue the pilot for breaching our contract, and at least recoup the cost of my funeral (that is, the financial consequence of the pilot’s failure to catch me).

If you have sex with a woman without making absolutely sure that your sperm stays away from fertile ground, it doesn’t matter what she said she’d do. You’re the only person that is going to pay the price for your lack of contraception.

Only because that’s how our law works today.

For a woman to have an abortion for your sake is putting her own self in peril’s way. Abortion is not a matter that entails only financial costs; intangibles are also involved. Health is involved.

Haven’t we been over this? The health consequences of abortion are comparable to the health consequences of pregnancy. My proposal makes an exception for the few cases where abortion poses a significantly higher risk.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
In fact, it is about choosing birth vs. abortion; sorry you missed that part.

No, I didn’t miss it at all. I just don’t think the analogy fits.

If I damage your car (get you pregnant), I’m responsible for getting your car back to the state it was in (no longer pregnant).

I’ll be no longer pregnant when the kid is born, won’t I?

I find it telling that you reduce a man’s life to mere “convenience”.

His life? Am I proposing that it be taken away? I find it telling that you are unwilling to fulfill a simple obligation, (especially when you knew ahead of time what the consequences could be) because your wallet is more sacred than being honorable.

Money isn’t just a number on an ATM screen, it represents an investment of time… there are only so many hours in a day, and so many days in a lifetime.

And a woman’s health and body are not insignificant either. Neither is a child’s life. And, I hasten to add, the money all us taxpayers give out to support other men’s children, that money represents time too.

Too bad all you can think about is the “bottom line” for you and for no one else. Not the taxpayers, not the woman you impregnate, not the child which bears part of your DNA.

Obligating a man to provide financial support for two decades is almost literally stealing a large chunk of his life.

And yet men pay child support right now. And I don’t see them dying from it. Get a grip. Being a mensch (I hope I spelled that right) and actually living up to your obligations is not fatal.

Haven’t we been over this? The health consequences of abortion are comparable to the health consequences of pregnancy.

Apparently you haven’t been paying attention. Pregnancy actually does sometimes have health benefits. (In my sister’s case, specifically, as I mentioned before, and there are other studies that indicate a lowered risk of cancer when a woman has given birth before a certain age.) Abortion, even if it is not immediately harmful, can have psychological consequences. Also, sometimes too many abortions can screw up a woman’s body. But of course, why should you care? You’ll never have to face such difficulties. You’ll never have to make the delicate decsions of which is best for your body. All you care about is your precious wallet.